Apple Can’t Escape ‘Bricked’ iPhone Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Apple will continue to face a consumer class action lawsuit following a federal judge’s partial denial of the company’s motion to dismiss.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria partially granted Apple’s motion to dismiss as to certain claims and denied it with regard to others, ultimately allowing the Apple class action lawsuit to continue over allegations the manufacturer designed certain iPhones to “brick” upon installation of non-Apple components.

Judge Chhabria said the plaintiffs’ claim for breach of implied warranty fails because the phones’ failure, as described by the plaintiffs, did not result from any latent defect that was present at the time the phones were purchased.

The judge attributed the failure of plaintiff Nicholas Lusson’s phone to his installation of an off-brand screen and home button. He noted Lusson could have revived his phone by having an Apple vendor revalidate the phone’s security pairing.

“By all accounts, Lusson’s device was ‘fit for [its] ordinary purposes’ and suitable for sale and use as a smartphone up until the moment he broke it,” the judge commented.

Claims for breach of express warranty also fail because none of the plaintiffs alleged they ever read either of the two Apple warranty statements on which the claims were based, the judge said. The warranty terms therefore could not have been a basis of the plaintiffs’ choice to buy the iPhone.

The claim for misrepresentation suffers a similar flaw: failure to plead a specific statement by Apple on which the plaintiffs relied.

Claims for fraudulent concealment and violation of certain California consumer protection statutes fail because they do not show Apple was under any duty to disclose relevant information, the judge found.

Similar claims under the statutes of Washington and Florida do not require the same duty, however, and Judge Chhabria found the plaintiffs had adequately pled claims under those states’ laws.

The judge also allowed claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation to go forward – at least for now – over Apple’s argument that they were barred by the economic loss rule, a rule that prevents plaintiffs from using a tort theory to recover for economic harm. At best, the judge felt this argument could use more briefing and factual development.

Finally, Judge Chhabria shot down the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief, finding they had not alleged any threat of future injury.

The plaintiffs filed this Apple iPhone class action lawsuit in February 2016 with allegations that Apple had purposely designed the phone to lock itself up upon installation of non-Apple hardware.

Plaintiffs allege that an operating system update checks whether the iPhone’s fingerprint-scanning Touch ID sensor is still present. If the system does not find the sensor, they say, it displays an “Error 53” message and locks the user out of the device with no way to get back in

Apple moved for dismissal in May 2016. The company chiefly argued that it had already adequately fixed the alleged Error 53 problem with a new software update and with reimbursements for customers who paid for repairs or for a new phone. Apple claimed its efforts to address the problem left the plaintiffs with nothing left to sue over.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Darrell L. Cochran, Jason P. Amala, Loren A. Cochran, Kevin H. Hastings and Christopher E. Love of Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC.

The Apple iPhone Error 53 Class Action Lawsuit is Lusson, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00705-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On Sept. 1, 2017, Apple agreed to settle individual claims with 169 iPhone users who allege their devices were wiped clean after a software update. If approved, the Apple settlement would resolve the individual claims of the 169 affected iPhone users, but would also leave open the possibility for other consumers to pursue a class action lawsuit against Apple.